Article 193: Small claims hearing and conciliation

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3433/2558 (2015)

   In a case ordered to proceed as one without complication, the version of section 196 paragraph two then in force required only that the court summon the defendant to appear and answer on a day it fixed. The duty in the small-claims procedure to put the defendant's answer to him before evidence is taken did not apply, and referring the case to mediation does not extend the time the court has allowed for the answer.

   The court of first instance summoned the defendants to appear and answer on 5 July 2549 and later extended only the time to answer, to 3 August. The case was then sent to mediation. The defendants filed their answer and counterclaim on 11 August and it was refused. The Court of Appeal Region 2 held the refusal unlawful; the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. Mediation did not extend the time allowed, the answer was out of time, and in a case without complication the law then in force imposed no duty to put the answer to the defendant. The argument that conducting conciliation satisfied section 193 paragraph two was the plaintiff's own contention in its further appeal, not a holding of the Court.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1186/2558 (2015)

   In a small claims case a duly summoned defendant must give a defense on the hearing date fixed under section 193; where the defendant fails to appear and defend, treating the defendant as in default and giving judgment is not an irregular proceeding.

   The defendant, duly served, failed to appear and defend on the small claims hearing date; the court held that deeming the defendant in default under section 193 and proceeding to judgment was not an irregular proceeding.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 10260/2556 (2013)

   Although section 193 paragraph four lets the court refuse an extension and deem a defendant in default for not defending, where the defendant has already filed a defense in time the court may still exercise discretion to allow a postponement, including to amend the defense.

   The defendant had filed a defense within time; the court held that section 193 paragraph four did not prevent it from exercising discretion to allow the defendant to seek amendment of the defense up to the postponed hearing date.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.